Barksdale v. State, CR
| Citation | 255 Ark. 272,499 S.W.2d 851 |
| Decision Date | 15 October 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Parties | Nathaniel BARKSDALE, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 73--95. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Robert F. Morehead, Pine Bluff, for appellant.
Jim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen. by Philip M. Wilson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a robbery conviction. Appellant advances five points for reversal. We find them to be without merit.
In January 1973, a neighborhood grocery in Pine Bluff was robbed by two men. City Officer Bobby Simmons happened to be patroling in the area at about the time of the robbery and heard a report of the incident over his radio. He spotted appellant and another man walking across the school grounds and radioed for help. Officer Kientz answered the call and when he arrived the two men were running across a field. Appellant and his companion were apprehended. A brown bag containing money was found along the trail used by the two men. Appellant gave the officers a fictitious name. The victim of the robbery shortly went to police headquarters and identified appellant as the man who held the gun on him. The argument of appellant that the evidence does not support the verdict has no validity.
Appellant says the court erred in denying his motion for a continuance. On the morning set for the trial appellant moved for a continuance to enable him to get another lawyer. He told the court that the two lawyers defending him and his codefendant were not familiar enough with the case and that 'he just did not want them'. This was the first knowledge the court or appellant's attorneys had that such a motion would be made. The attorneys conceded that they were ready to try the case. One of the attorneys complained that appellant had not paid his fee but the court advised that the fee would be paid by the county. In denying the motion for continuance the court said: 'The jury is here, you have had ample time to notify the Court and if we were to permit a man to come into court every time his case is set for trial and discharge his attorneys we never would try anybody'. The court certainly did not abuse its discretion. Hill v. State, 250 Ark. 812, 467 S.W.2d 179 (1971).
The court properly denied appellant's motion for a mistrial on the grounds that he was wearing prison garb. The record shows that appellant was wearing bell-bottom white trousers, a gold shirt, a white and brown striped jacket, and house shoes. There was no evidence of any name or number on the apparel. Nor do we find any merit in the allegation that appellant was brought handcuffed in full view of the jury. The record shows that appellant was handcuffed but the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cannon v. State
...the jail attire that appellant wore at trial. This precludes appellant from prevailing on this issue on appeal. In Barksdale v. State, 255 Ark. 272, 499 S.W.2d 851 (1973), the supreme court The court properly denied appellant's motion for a mistrial on the grounds that he was wearing prison......
-
Townsend v. State, CR
...jurors. See Gillie v. State, supra; Williams v. State, 304 Ark. 218, 800 S.W.2d 713 (1990); Hill v. State, supra; Barksdale v. State, 255 Ark. 272, 499 S.W.2d 851 (1973). Here, we can safely assume that Townsend's comings and goings in leg irons, through the front door of the courtroom and ......
-
Lopez v. State
...that shirt, trousers, and "slip-on tennis shoes" did not bear any writing to indicate they were prison clothing); Barksdale v. State, 499 S.W.2d 851, 852 (Ark. 1973) (affirming the denial of a motion for mistrial on grounds that the defendant wore prison garb where the record showed that tr......
-
Johnson v. State, CR76--222
...proof of prejudice and we can find no abuse of discretion by the trial judge in denying the motion for mistrial. See Barksdale v. State, 255 Ark. 272, 499 S.W.2d 851 (1973), and Gregory v. United States, 365 F.2d 203 (8th Cir. Affirmed. We agree. HARRIS, C.J., and FOGLEMAN and ROY, JJ. ...